Is Turin Shroud a fake?..

Is the Turin Shroud a "fake"? i mean in the sense that the supposed cloth Jesus was buried with was only a paint or a fake...if so (that,s possible) the man who did it should have been a complete unknown "genius" superior to Leonardo Da Vinci in all aspects..

-he should know anatomy, Botanic,Paint,some kind of photography and more things, although on the other hand there are several contradictions (the face and body are deformed, there is some paint on it, ..)

Hmmm, it's a very good fake.
From what i've read, it isn't the same shroud that was first talked about and this one turned up about the same time as Leonardo Da Vinci lived. Also wasn't Jesus supposed to be a small ugly looking hunch back ?

Hmmm, it's a very good fake.
From what i've read, it isn't the same shroud that was first talked about and this one turned up about the same time as Leonardo Da Vinci lived. Also wasn't Jesus supposed to be a small ugly looking hunch back ?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it carbon dates to before DaVinci's life (inaccuracies even taken into account).

They had this on tv a while back. A guy figured out how to make these fake shrouds. It involves using a piece of glass and a picture. The light shines through the glass. In the processes, the picture blocks out some sunlight and causes a slight discoloration between the areas where the picture is and is not. It makes a 3d effect. He showed several pictures he had used to create similar "shrouds."

Not that I want to get into a religous discussion but you'll generally find the Catholic church has long had a policy of advicating that which agreed with it's messages and denying or even destroying that which didn't much like any organisation, most organisations dont resort to burning people who advocate a difference of opinion but still

The Church has a deal of trouble with many of it's artefacts this being one among many that are hoaxes. Although if your the church you would welcome anything as well hoaxed as this whether you knew it was a fake or real, means to an end, understandable.

Same with everything Christian be it apocrypha, gnostic texts etc, etc, all genuine text but not necessarily conducive to the message: it's good practice to only include that which agrees with the churches message, otherwise people get confused and the message becomes diluted. Whether it's the right message though is anyones guess? But a shroud or a knuckle bone of Jesus never hurts when stirring the religous ferver pot :)

During the middle ages you could pick up religous relics all over christendom, it's hardly surprising some genuine ones got mixed up with fakes. The Aramaic scrolls of the new testament, pukka, the left toe nail of St John the divine and the holy hand grenade of antioch, ahhh probably not

In conclusion in holy terms what is real fake and genuine and the true words of Christ is strictly decided by the Church, and apparently God tells them they are right :tongue2: To be honest though, I find all of it pretty interesting whether it agrees with the catholic message or it's fake or genuine.

BTW I really do have a knuckle bone of Christ if your interested and part of the holy cross, I'll sell you both for oooh a score? Interested?

Not that I want to get into a religous discussion but you'll generally find the Catholic church has long had a policy of advicating that which agreed with it's messages and denying or even destroying that which didn't much like any organisation, most organisations dont resort to burning people who advocate a difference of opinion but still

Click to expand...

what a poor interpretation of the history of the church. Compared to most organizations, the church is probibaly one of the better ones. And I'm sure on average the everyday person employed by the church, whatever the job may be, is more helpful to the community than the common man, or common poster on an internet physics board. When you watch too many PBS specials on the Crusades/Dan Brown books, I can see why people share your view.

Schrodinger's Dog said:

The Church has a deal of trouble with many of it's artefacts this being one among many that are hoaxes. Although if your the church you would welcome anything as well hoaxed as this whether you knew it was a fake or real, means to an end, understandable.

Click to expand...

This really isn't a coherent paragraph, but if you are attempting to imply that the church would knowingly promote a artifact they knew to be false, I would like to see proof that they would promote such activities. I think you are pulling this out of thin air.

Schrodinger's Dog said:

Same with everything Christian be it apocrypha, gnostic texts etc, etc, all genuine text but not necessarily conducive to the message: it's good practice to only include that which agrees with the churches message, otherwise people get confused and the message becomes diluted. Whether it's the right message though is anyones guess? But a shroud or a knuckle bone of Jesus never hurts when stirring the religous ferver pot :)

Click to expand...

The right message is anyones guess? More like the daunting reasearch of countless scholars, historians, priests, and others. And I doubt they promoted the shroud of turn in order "stir things up".

I remember hearing someone carbon-dated the blood on the shroud and found that it came 1000 years after Jesus's death... Also, I think it was determined that the punctures in the hands were in the wrong place, and the nails would have ripped out...

eljose said:

...if so (that,s possible) the man who did it should have been a complete unknown "genius" superior to Leonardo Da Vinci in all aspects.

Click to expand...

Why do you say that? I haven't seen anything about this shroud to make me suspect this.

what a poor interpretation of the history of the church. Compared to most organizations, the church is probibaly one of the better ones. And I'm sure on average the everyday person employed by the church, whatever the job may be, is more helpful to the community than the common man, or common poster on an internet physics board. When you watch too many PBS specials on the Crusades/Dan Brown books, I can see why people share your view.

This really isn't a coherent paragraph, but if you are attempting to imply that the church would knowingly promote a artifact they knew to be false, I would like to see proof that they would promote such activities. I think you are pulling this out of thin air.

The right message is anyones guess? More like the daunting reasearch of countless scholars, historians, priests, and others. And I doubt they promoted the shroud of turn in order "stir things up".

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't answer your questions or it would break forum rules I will say this though I have done a deal of studying of the Church and I don't make claims like this off the top of my head, shame we can't discuss it but rules is rules.

That's one of the knowingly promoted fakes I'm talking about, the church has known it isn't blood for centuries, it's just an interesting chemical reaction is all.

Click to expand...

Yet another way in which religionists became/become morally stunted by their beliefs.
In the interest of "furthering piety", they knowingly twist facts, disseminate lies and so on.
That is, values like intellectual integrity and commitment to truth is hindered from developing within them.